As a refresher, an Apple A5X processor that has seen its onboard RAM double from 512MB to 1GB powers the new iPad. The A5X is also blessed with a quad-core GPU which boosts gaming performance and helps feed the new iPad's biggest new feature: a 2048 x 1536 resolution Retina display. Other niceties include a 5MP rear-facing camera, and optional LTE connectivity.

On the negative side, the weight and thickness of the iPad has grown to accommodate a new 42.5 watt-hour battery (the iPad 2 had a 25 watt-hour battery). In addition, Apple is once again being stingy with storage capacities on the iPad. Even though app sizes are doubling or even tripling in some cases due to Retina support, Apple is holding firm with 16GB, 32GB, and 64GB capacities -- the same lineup as when the first generation iPad launched in 2010.

Tonight, however, we're getting our first look at what the new iPad can do courtesy of a flood of reviews. Here are some select excerpts from the reviews that are currently available:

Joshua Topolsky of The Verge gives his thoughts on the iPad 3's gorgeous new Retina display:

Yes, this display is outrageous. It's stunning. It's incredible. I'm not being hyperbolic or exaggerative when I say it is easily the most beautiful computer display I have ever looked at…

You literally can't see pixels on the iPad's display when you hold it at a regular distance, and even up close you have to really inspect the thing to see dots. For rendered text or high resolution images, it just looks otherworldly; like a glowing piece of paper.

The difference between the iPad 2's display and the new iPad's Retina display [Source: The Verge]

Walt Mossberg of AllThingsD fame touched on the battery life of the new iPad. While it's not quite the power-sipper as its predecessor, it still posts some impressive numbers.

Apple claims up to 10 hours of battery life between charges, and up to nine hours if you are relying strictly on cellular connectivity. In my standard battery test, where I play videos back to back with both cellular and Wi-Fi on, and the screen at 75% brightness, the new iPad logged 9 hours and 58 minutes, compared with 10 hours and 9 minutes for the iPad 2. Other tablets died hours sooner in the same test. In more normal use, the new iPad lasted more than a full day, though not as long as the iPad 2 did.

The original iPad didn't have any cameras at all, while the iPad 2 came with a standard front-facing camera for FaceTime and an incredibly subpar rear-facing camera for pictures and 720p video. The new iPad can now features a 5MP camera and bumps video recording up to 1080p. Vincent Nguyen of SlashGear gives his thoughts on the new optics:

Apple says it has borrowed the camera technology and optics from the iPhone 4S for the new iPad, though still the 5-megapixel images the tablet is capable of do lag behind the 8-megapixel examples from the smartphone. There’s more visible noise and chromatic aberrations at full zoom, though the quality is far, far better than any stills the iPad 2 can achieve. You also get face recognition for up to ten people per frame, automatically adjusting focus and exposure, but the camera app UI itself is no more complex than before.

While the actual CPU hasn't improved much over the iPad 2, the integrated GPU has definitely been turbocharged, as witnessed by Jason Snell of MacWorld:

That power comes from the X factor in the A5X processor—a new quad-core graphics engine. And sure enough, the third-generation iPad blows away every other iOS device in terms of graphics performance. In our tests using the GLBench 3D graphics testing app, the third-generation iPad could draw a complex 3D scene at the full frame rate of its display, 60 frames per second, without breaking a sweat. And in GLBench offscreen tests, which aren’t constrained by the display’s frame rate, the third-generation iPad had a frame rate 1.6 times that of the iPad 2 (and 13 times that of the original iPad).

[Source: MacWorld]

Overall, the new iPad seems to be another solid entry into the tablet field for Apple. It holds the line on CPU performance and battery life (at the expense of device thickness and weight) while offering an impressive Retina display, optional LTE, and a tremendous boost in graphics performance. Pricing remains the same as previous iPad model ($499/$599/$699 for Wi-Fi; add $130 for LTE models), but Apple still doesn't have the guts to give users an increase in storage capacities.

To sum things up, Joshua Topolsky offers these words of advice:

Let's be clear: the new iPad is in a class by itself, just as its predecessor was. As the latest product in a lineage of devices that defined this category, the iPad continues to stand head and shoulders above the competition. With the addition of the Retina display, LTE, more memory, and a more powerful CPU, Apple has absolutely held onto the iPad's market position as the dominant player and product to beat.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

quote: Again, because you've taken the exact same photo on both and compared quality? Or are you just guessing.

Perhaps he's read the numerous reviews stating the Prime's camera to be the best camera on a tablet thus far? The iPad 2's camera looked like a 90's web cam. Granted they did bring up the quality in the new iPad, but by the looks of the test shots, they are just matching the current quality of most tablets available.

quote: Well it's all relative. Whichever way we word it, Tegra 3 is a relatively slow GPU. Slower even than the iPad 2.

I'll use your own wording for this...

Again, because you've played the exact same game on both and compared quality at the same resolution? Or are you just guessing.

Since you're wearing the rose colored glasses, you might not understand the reference. The iPad 2's GPU has to push 786,432 pixels, where as the Tegra 3's resolution has to push 1,024,000 pixels on the prime. That's roughly a 30% difference. Is the iPad 2's GPU 30% faster?

As far as the new iPad's GPU being 4x faster... well, it HAS to be. It's powering 3,145,728 pixels. This also goes into my storage argument later on, so stay tuned.

quote: You can get a keyboard dock for the iPad too.

Does said iPad keyboard have a mousepad? Full size SD card slot? USB slot? Built in battery? (btw, the Prime I was sampling easily got 3-4 days of moderate usage on the battery, not sure where you got your battery claims from).

You don't quite yet understand the differences between where the Prime is going and where your beloved iPad is going. The iPad is a media consumption device. Always has been. To your defense most Android tablets are as well. The Prime is trying to blur that line and make the tablet more useful for creation scenarios. I've had the privelage to personally test a Prime side by side with an iPad 2, and the distinction is clear. There comes a point where an iPad user will say "I want to do x, but it's just not feasible with the iPad's input methods".

For example, while I had the Prime, I was able to take a few pictures with my digital camera. After, I took my SD card out of the camera and put it into the Prime's SD slot (on the keyboard), loaded the pictures into Photoshop Touch, did some adjustments, and emailed them off to the people who needed them. I did NOT have to carry around a laptop or hunt for a computer with photoshop installed. Simple, easy, PRODUCTIVE .

quote: The point in the apps argument is that there are many functionalities which many people want which simply aren't available on Android.

No your point in the argument is someone has challenged your amazing new iDevice. You make blanket statements such as the one I just quoted, without backing it up with any proof. Which apps do people simply want, that aren't available?

And widgets aren't useful? That's probably because you've never had them in the iWorld. Weather, News, Email, SMS, Music, Movie Times, Sports Scores, System Tools, Toggles, are all vastly more efficiently accessed via a widget than opening an app for each one. How easy is it to toggle WiFi on the iPad? What about looking up weather? Email? etc. Gliding from screen to screen on the Android homescreen can answer all these questions without ever opening an app.

One final argument before I finish. Storage space. iPads don't have anything other than what's built in. While testing the prime, I had 32GB on board, 32GB in a microSD, 32GB on a full SD, and finally 32GB on a usb stick. I didn't get a chance to test the usb port for portable hard drives, so I can't comment as to whether they work or not, but all together, that's 128GB of space to play with. You may argue that the iPad doesn't need all that, but have you heard of the new Retina display? How small do you think building textures for that resolution will be? On Android a decent game can take 500MB, easy.

We get it, you love Apple. While their new iPad is a great device for sure, it's not vastly steps ahead of the competition. I'd reluctantly recommend it to people who want a media consumption appliance, where they are guided on how they can use it and don't have many options to veer from the path. While the GPU on the iPad may indeed be the fastest available, it has to be just to keep up with the experience of other tablets that have already been on the market for months. It's still a step behind in the actual number crunching department, plain and simple.

quote: Wasn't it Apple who said not to use the iPad in direct sunlight because of overheating?

Does that link from 2010 refer to the iPad 3? No.Is that link about display brightness? No.Therefore, is it relevant to what was being discussed? No.

quote: Perhaps he's read the numerous reviews stating the Prime's camera to be the best camera on a tablet thus far?

None of which will have tested the iPad 3 camera. Which is precisely my point. A complete you obviously missed.

quote: I'll use your own wording for this... Again, because you've played the exact same game on both and compared quality at the same resolution? Or are you just guessing. Since you're wearing the rose colored glasses, you might not understand the reference. The iPad 2's GPU has to push 786,432 pixels, where as the Tegra 3's resolution has to push 1,024,000 pixels on the prime. That's roughly a 30% difference. Is the iPad 2's GPU 30% faster? As far as the new iPad's GPU being 4x faster... well, it HAS to be. It's powering 3,145,728 pixels. This also goes into my storage argument later on, so stay tuned.

The relative benchmark speeds of GPU's has nothing at all to do with resolution. All benchmarks, ideally, such as those on Anandtech, are at the same resolution. Your comments about screen resolution are therefore completely meaningless. The benchmarks show that at the SAME RESOLUTION, the iPad 2 GPU is up to 2x faster than tegra 3. I therefore can evidence my logical claim that the Tegra 3 is relatively slow when compared to the GPU in the iPad 3 (which is theoretically 2x faster than the iPad 2 GPU). The fact that the new iPad has even more pixels is completely irrelevant too because it can render at iPad 2 resolution and upscale if required. And also because a GPU isn't measured by the device it's in - it's measured by the graphics it can produce relative to other GPU's when resolution is constant.

quote: Does said iPad keyboard have a mousepad? Full size SD card slot? USB slot? Built in battery? (btw, the Prime I was sampling easily got 3-4 days of moderate usage on the battery, not sure where you got your battery claims from).

You can get one with USB slots, SD cards, batteries, yes. Very easily, or a mouse accessory. But the original comment didn't say this, and neither did my reply. So your failed point is irrelevant. The bottom line is that in accessory terms, you'd struggle to find a device with more accessories than the iPad 3.

quote: You don't quite yet understand the differences between where the Prime is going and where your beloved iPad is going. The iPad is a media consumption device. Always has been. To your defense most Android tablets are as well. The Prime is trying to blur that line and make the tablet more useful for creation scenarios. I've had the privelage to personally test a Prime side by side with an iPad 2, and the distinction is clear. There comes a point where an iPad user will say "I want to do x, but it's just not feasible with the iPad's input methods". For example, while I had the Prime, I was able to take a few pictures with my digital camera. After, I took my SD card out of the camera and put it into the Prime's SD slot (on the keyboard), loaded the pictures into Photoshop Touch, did some adjustments, and emailed them off to the people who needed them. I did NOT have to carry around a laptop or hunt for a computer with photoshop installed. Simple, easy, PRODUCTIVE

Firstly - you say 'beloved' iPad. I don't own a tablet. Just because I am not so bitter about Apple that I can appreciate what they have developed like anyone logical, doesn't mean I love them or own them.

Secondly - this discussion isn't about where devices are 'going', it's specifically about where they are now, comparing the iPad 3 to the Transformer Prime. Nothing to do with the future.

Thirdly - there come points for Android tablet users every day when there aren't apps available when they want to do productive things. It's well documented how much fewer apps there are on Android and how they always come second. Your example of photo editing is pretty ironic given that Apples new software provides the ability to do precisely what you describe. Simply take the photo, plug the SD card into your iPhone SD adapter ($5), edit it using the iPhone photo editing software (very highly regarded). And of course, that photo editing happens faster due to the more capable GPU and in better quality due to the superior screen resolution.

Fourthly yes the difference is immediately obvious because one is ugly, poorly made, lower resolution, slower, has a battery which dies sooner and has MUCH fewer apps.

quote: No your point in the argument is someone has challenged your amazing new iDevice. You make blanket statements such as the one I just quoted, without backing it up with any proof. Which apps do people simply want, that aren't available?

I have given numerous examples in various posts. I'll give a single one because I only need one to prove my point. Sky Sports, who have the exclusive rights to the most watched football league in any sport in the world - the English Premier League. The app for that is only available on iPad. As is the F1 coverage. And again, I don't own an 'amazing new iDevice' - you sound pretty bitter about them though. That you challenge my 'blanket statement' that is pretty much common knowledge certainly evidences this.

quote: And widgets aren't useful? That's probably because you've never had them in the iWorld. Weather, News, Email, SMS, Music, Movie Times, Sports Scores, System Tools, Toggles, are all vastly more efficiently accessed via a widget than opening an app for each one. How easy is it to toggle WiFi on the iPad? What about looking up weather? Email? etc. Gliding from screen to screen on the Android homescreen can answer all these questions without ever opening an app.

Honestly? Weather, SMS, Email, Music, System Tools are all widgets you can have on your home page on iOS, they show when you have new emails, so you just tap and then there you have it. If that single click is too challenging for you, and you're desperate to have it all immediately, go with Android. But most people aren't so mentally incapable that this is a requirement for them. Wifi toggle? I've never ever turned Wifi off on any apple device. Ever. For me, (and most people), there's never a need to turn it off. That you have such a focus on it simply exposes how awful Android battery life is. Weather on home screen, email one tap. Rocket science? lol. 'Widgets' has to be the single weakest argument of fandroids, and if you desperately wanted that on an iPad or iPhone you can, by jailbreaking. No problem at all.

quote: One final argument before I finish. Storage space. iPads don't have anything other than what's built in. While testing the prime, I had 32GB on board, 32GB in a microSD, 32GB on a full SD, and finally 32GB on a usb stick. I didn't get a chance to test the usb port for portable hard drives, so I can't comment as to whether they work or not, but all together, that's 128GB of space to play with. You may argue that the iPad doesn't need all that, but have you heard of the new Retina display? How small do you think building textures for that resolution will be? On Android a decent game can take 500MB, easy.

You can use SD cards, USB sticks and hard drives with iPad too. So you're whole rant is irrelevant. You don't, typically, because those kinds of storage are always slower and damage performance, and because, as you say, the majority of people don't need that much storage. Your example of a game taking 500mb is pretty irrelevant since you would need someone who had loads of top top quality games which are all much bigger textually for it even to be relevant. Such a power user (and it's a tiny minority) would probably have the 32GB model. At least when they do game, it's actually far higher quality and far faster. Indeed, any true gamer who matched your example would never be satisfied with the up to 4x slower Tegra 3.

quote: We get it, you love Apple. While their new iPad is a great device for sure, it's not vastly steps ahead of the competition. I'd reluctantly recommend it to people who want a media consumption appliance, where they are guided on how they can use it and don't have many options to veer from the path. While the GPU on the iPad may indeed be the fastest available, it has to be just to keep up with the experience of other tablets that have already been on the market for months. It's still a step behind in the actual number crunching department, plain and simple.

I don't love Apple at all. As I told you, I don't own an iPad. I just use logic. If Android tablets were better than iPads, I would say so. They just aren't. Not even close. You're accusing me of being biased but honestly, your whole comment is dripping of bias against Apple - probably because you own Android devices.

You say it's not 'vastly ahead' of the competition? Really? Even the iPad 2 performance hasn't been matched to date. The iPad 4 is up to 4x faster graphically than the FASTEST Android tablet, has a higher resolution than any, has the best battery life, and best reliability ratings. Apple also supports the software for far longer than Android and has thousands upon thousands of apps, the vast majority of which are higher quality and not just blown up smartphone apps.

Your claims that the GPU 'has to be fast just to keep up' are beyond ridiculous. All the Android tablets will try to catch up to the resolution AND the graphics performance of the new iPad. They are massively, massively, behind on both. Generations behind. Even behind the iPad 2. In the 'number crunching department' the iPad GPU wins, hands down, in almost every important metric. Crucially, the performance is 4x faster. Your attempt to describe the 4x more powerful GPU as inferior because the screen is also massively superior, is quite frankly an irrational joke which makes a mockery of your rant.

Oh my where to start. Not an Apple fan? You're stretching your points really far towards that direction. Maybe you just don't like admitting you're wrong. Either way, it's the case.

quote: Does that link from 2010 refer to the iPad 3? No.

No, it doesn't. It was meant as a humorous counterpoint. However, given Apples track record, thermal efficiency is an afterthought compared to aesthetics.

quote: None of which will have tested the iPad 3 camera. Which is precisely my point. A complete you obviously missed.

Have you seen the pictures they've taken with the new iPad? They are a ton better than iPad 2, but then again, a modern webcam is a step above the iPad 2. Besides, who would use a tablet for considerable photography anyway?

quote: The relative benchmark speeds of GPU's has nothing at all to do with resolution. All benchmarks, ideally, such as those on Anandtech, are at the same resolution. Your comments about screen resolution are therefore completely meaningless. The benchmarks show that at the SAME RESOLUTION, the iPad 2 GPU is up to 2x faster than tegra 3. I therefore can evidence my logical claim that the Tegra 3 is relatively slow when compared to the GPU in the iPad 3 (which is theoretically 2x faster than the iPad 2 GPU). The fact that the new iPad has even more pixels is completely irrelevant too because it can render at iPad 2 resolution and upscale if required. And also because a GPU isn't measured by the device it's in - it's measured by the graphics it can produce relative to other GPU's when resolution is constant.

You do realize that almost all 10" Android tablets run a higher resolution than the iPad 2 (those numbers I gave you), right? Last I checked, a lot of games don't have resolution settings and are just developed to the native resolution of the device. Also, the only Tegra 3 tablet right now is the Prime which is ... shocker ... 1280x800. So explain to me how Anandtech managed to force the games on the Prime to play at 1024x768? Go ahead, we will all wait for your *brilliant* explanation. Again, Show us multiple benchmarks.

quote: You can get one with USB slots, SD cards, batteries, yes. Very easily, or a mouse accessory. But the original comment didn't say this, and neither did my reply. So your failed point is irrelevant. The bottom line is that in accessory terms, you'd struggle to find a device with more accessories than the iPad 3.

Oh really? Show me a single accessory that turns the iPad into an *attractive* mini netbook with a Keyboard, Trackpad, USB slot, SD Slot, and extra battery. I'd love to see this. Also, can you move your apps and such to said SD card? You failed to realize my point. Yes the iPad has tons of accessories, but how many are as useful as the keyboard dock on the Prime. I'll save you the trouble. None.

quote: Firstly - you say 'beloved' iPad. I don't own a tablet. Just because I am not so bitter about Apple that I can appreciate what they have developed like anyone logical, doesn't mean I love them or own them.

So what you're saying, is you're a spec sheet jockey with no real experience on any of the products discussed. Got it.

quote: Secondly - this discussion isn't about where devices are 'going', it's specifically about where they are now, comparing the iPad 3 to the Transformer Prime. Nothing to do with the future.

My facts and statements were about the current state of things.

quote: Thirdly - there come points for Android tablet users every day when there aren't apps available when they want to do productive things. It's well documented how much fewer apps there are on Android and how they always come second. Your example of photo editing is pretty ironic given that Apples new software provides the ability to do precisely what you describe. Simply take the photo, plug the SD card into your iPhone SD adapter ($5), edit it using the iPhone photo editing software (very highly regarded). And of course, that photo editing happens faster due to the more capable GPU and in better quality due to the superior screen resolution.

Did you really just say the iPad uses the GPU for photo editing? Really? Computational tasks (such as photo/video manipulation) are a CPU intensive process, unless the application supports GPU acceleration. I don't have any experience with the software you're referring to say whether or not that feature exists. Neither do you, so your opinion is moot on this.

quote: Fourthly yes the difference is immediately obvious because one is ugly, poorly made, lower resolution, slower, has a battery which dies sooner and has MUCH fewer apps.

Yup, you definitely don't love Apple or the iPad. Look, you haven't proven a damn thing. I see a lot of talk talk talk, but no proof (and sorry, but your opinion is not fact). Not a single link (to an unbiased source), no list of apps (and no, I'm not going to waste my time reading all your dribble on this article). You mentioned a single F1 racing app. I don't know of anyone who watches F1, so it's not exactly an app I could say "people" want.

To dissect the rest of your crap:

Ugly - The Prime is more attractive than any iPad IMO.Poorly Made - Tossup. Yes some have GPS issues (my sample did not), but all the iPads have had issues upon launch as well (overheating, screens, etc). We won't know about this iPad until a month from now.Slower - Also debatable. For pure 3D acceleration, yes. But find an app that can handle multithreading and I'd be willing to bet a 4x1.4GHz CPU will hand a 2x1GHz CPU it's ass in computational work load (aka getting stuff done).Battery - You have no idea what you're talking about. No really, you don't. You've said so yourself (See: I don't own a tablet). I've sampled a Prime and the battery claims of 10-12 hours on typical use is entirely correct. Anandtech themselves got 11 hours of continuous video playback. Couple that with a dock and there is no competition.

You really make this too easy. Even Tony knows more than you about this. He at least posts links (even if biased), to try and back up his claims.

I started to read your second reply, but saw that it was filled with personal attacks. That's the first sign that you're losing a debate, so I'd hang it up now before you look like more a fool.

And yet, no one cares about Android Tablets/Phones with all these ports and memory slots and more storage... Only ultra nerds who hate apple... Remember when you all used to hate Microsoft?? Ahhh the 90s.

I believe there was a debate earlier regarding DLNA. First, Android devices didn't have it. Then, when the Apple user discovered they did from an actual informed poster, they then argued DLNA isn't enough and argued that Apple TV's sync function was better than DLNA. Then Android users countered with equivalent technology should you want it. Apple user then just simply stated "Ours is best"

There seems to be a strange trend in all these Apple threads... and it's not Android fanboyism... I just can't put my finger on it. Anyone care to help?